that he finds a debt owed to him by a person in his own handwriting, and he knows that he does not write anything except the truth, yet he does not remember it; or he finds a debt owed to him by a person in his father’s ledger (ruzmanaj) (14) in his father’s handwriting, and he knows his father’s integrity and that he does not write anything except the truth. In such a case, he may swear an oath regarding it, though it is not permissible for him to testify to it. Even if a trustworthy person informed him of his father’s right and he felt reassured by it, it is permissible for him to swear an oath regarding it, but it is not permissible for him to testify to it. Al-Shafi'i held this view. The difference between the oath and testimony is from two aspects: First, that testimony is for someone else (15), so it is possible that the one for whom the testimony is intended has forged the handwriting, whereas this possibility does not exist regarding what one swears an oath for, because the right belongs to the oath-taker himself, so no one would forge against him. Second, that what a person writes regarding his own rights is frequent, so he may forget some of it, unlike testimony.

Section: In every instance where [testimony by a witness] (16) and an oath are accepted, there is no difference between whether the claimant is a Muslim or a disbeliever, upright or a sinner, a man or a woman. Ahmad stated this explicitly, because the ruling for the one for whom the oath is legislated does not change based on these differences in attributes, just as is the case for the denier when there is no evidence (bayyinah).

Section: Ahmad said: The Sunnah has passed that judgment should be rendered by an oath with a single witness. If he refuses to swear, the defendant is asked to swear. This is the view of Malik and al-Shafi'i. It is reported from Ahmad: If the defendant refuses to swear, the right is established against him.

Section: The testimony of two women and the oath of the claimant are not accepted. Al-Shafi'i also held this view. Malik said: This is accepted in financial matters, because they are treated as equal to one man in financial matters, so he swears with them just as he would swear with a man. Our argument is that evidence regarding property, if it lacks a man, is not accepted, just as if four women were to testify; and what they mentioned is invalidated by this example. For if they were treated as equivalent to a man in every respect, then four women would suffice in place of two men, and the testimony of a man and two women would be accepted in matters other than property. Furthermore, the testimony of two women is weak, which is strengthened by the presence of a man, whereas the oath is [also] weak, and combining one weak thing with another weak thing does not result in its acceptance.